Are you purposely missing the point?
If the rich are taxed more, they will have less money to reinvest and will be more cautious with the money they have left to reinvest, thus slowing economic growth.
Stock Market hits record... Where's the MSM?
- Thread starter MonsterMark
- Start date
Are you purposely missing the point?
If the rich are taxed more, they will have less money to reinvest and will be more cautious with the money they have left to reinvest, thus slowing economic growth.
On the other hand, if their taxed more (and Govt Spending is in check) then the lower income people will have more money to spend, thus improving economic growth AND improving their quality of life.
MY point, is that there are 2 sides to things.
Yes. The poor will get a portion of the money taken from the rich after that money is divided up for other things (like foreign aid) which take money out of the U.S. economy. Thus economic growth is slowed compared to what it would have been if the rich were allowed to keep their money. Even if "government spending is in check", the government is still going to take out a large portion of that money for their needs.
You are forgetting the fact that the government is acting as a middle man here. While the poor get some money, it is only a small portion of the money that the rich paid in taxes. The poor don't get anywhere near enough money to come close to growing the economy like the rich would if they were able to keep that money.
If the rich were allowed to keep that money, it would all be reinvested in the american economy and create jobs for the poor to earn money and help grow the economy as well.
There are two sides, but one side is grossly outmatched.
Also, remember that Obama wants to impose a multi-billion dollar tax on the U.S. to help fight global poverty; taking money out of the U.S. economy and shrinking it.
Hence my statement "and Govt Spending is in check".... We need to significantly reduce foreign aid until we get out debt down.
One trouble with your theory... A rich man, buying and selling existing stocks, doesnt really create much in the way of jobs.
Someone such as Warren Buffet, who invests in alot of smaller companies and gives them expansion capitol, does create jobs.
We need to put the screws to countries like China, India and Saudi. We need FAIR trade. We need to not keep sending our dollars overseas with nothing coming back. Right now, we are building China's economy and infrastructure.
Its bad business to buy more then you sell, which is what we are doing and have been for some time. You eventually bankrupt that way. In the meantime, we have to work to reduce our national debt.
Neither candidate has really impressed me that they have any plan to do that.
One trouble with your theory... A rich man, buying and selling existing stocks, doesnt really create much in the way of jobs.
Someone such as Warren Buffet, who invests in alot of smaller companies and gives them expansion capitol, does create jobs.
We need to put the screws to countries like China, India and Saudi. We need FAIR trade. We need to not keep sending our dollars overseas with nothing coming back. Right now, we are building China's economy and infrastructure.
Its bad business to buy more then you sell, which is what we are doing and have been for some time. You eventually bankrupt that way. In the meantime, we have to work to reduce our national debt.
Neither candidate has really impressed me that they have any plan to do that.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Joey, the government has been doing this for decades. To date more than ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS has been spent in wealth redistribution in the so-called war on poverty.
We still have poor people.
This completely DESTROYS your argument above.
How many more TRILLIONS do you suppose needs to be spent before you admit that this system of socialism doesn't work?
It comes nowhere close. Im talking about things like foreign aid, unecessary wars, etc.
WTF do we have now? Where is your socialism comments now that GW and the congress is bailing out everyone? How is that working? Another trillion down the tubes.
Go to any bar and ask 10 people if they are richer today then they were in 2000. That will be your answer.
The fundamental question posed in this thread has yet to be addressed by the left.
When the economy was soaring under the Bush administration, why didn't the MSM say a word about it. According to the media, there's been nothing but bad news, every week, for 8 years.
Fact is, the economy has been very good for the past several years, but it was misreported. Now that we're facing an International down turn, aggravated by the Democrat Economic policy in the U.S., it has nothing to do with the two terms of unrelated doom and gloom we've been enduring.
You can't just ask the guy on the corner his perception of the economy. The opinion is heavily influenced by the image presented by the media. When the economy was strong, people were worried because they were misled. Now that it's weakening, people are being duped into thinking over regulation and nationalizing industry will give them security.
Freedom and prosperity aren't, but security.
When the economy was soaring under the Bush administration, why didn't the MSM say a word about it. According to the media, there's been nothing but bad news, every week, for 8 years.
Fact is, the economy has been very good for the past several years, but it was misreported. Now that we're facing an International down turn, aggravated by the Democrat Economic policy in the U.S., it has nothing to do with the two terms of unrelated doom and gloom we've been enduring.
You can't just ask the guy on the corner his perception of the economy. The opinion is heavily influenced by the image presented by the media. When the economy was strong, people were worried because they were misled. Now that it's weakening, people are being duped into thinking over regulation and nationalizing industry will give them security.
Freedom and prosperity aren't, but security.
Because, nothing was "soaring" -- One thing went up, but another went down. And dont give me any blame for the democrats. I've said it before, GW and the republicans had 6 years to fix anything they thought was wrong. They clearly didnt fix anything and/or made things fall apart.
Joey, you respond, yet you don't argue anything.
You're saying the economy has not been strong.
Based on what?
I may be giving you too much credit if I presume you can even think of one section of the economy that was down, while the rest of it was up..
The reality is, the PERCEPTION of the economy has been bad, but that's the result of bad reporting.
And about the Republicans having six years to fix things.
That's nonsense.
First- the Republicans DID NOT control the Senate for six years.
Second- the majorities they held have been so slim that they were ineffective. Using your logic, Bush shouldn't have had any trouble getting his political and judicial appointments confirmed, but he did.
And you're also failing to note the REPUBLICANS ARE PISSED OFF WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS. They were ineffective and failed to govern by the rules they traditionally support.
The problem is, despite this, those same failures are STILL BETTER than the absolutely insanity that is the Democrat party. That's really scary.
You also said they "clearly didn't fix anything." That's a stupid statement, because I can't point to something that didn't happen and demonstrate that it's because of what they did do. The reality is, many of the economic policies the Republicans did pass, on the good days, helped keep the economy strong for the past seven years. They prevented a severe cyclical recession after the tech bubble burst and after 9/11.
So, if you ever get around to directly answering a challenge-
specifically, what sectors of the economy have trended badly the past few years?
And what economic policies do you think are necessary for a strong and healthy economy? Which ones are actively supported by the DNC?
Also, which Republican policies caused things to "fall apart." And what specifically has fallen apart?
Last edited by a moderator:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I'm sorry, but I don't see how this argument even lands on the same planet as mine.
Do you want me to say that the bailout is socialism? IT IS. So what is your point? More redistribution will not help things. HOW IS THE MARKET NOW, AFTER THE BAILOUT, hmmmm? Still falling. According to YOUR OWN LOGIC, correlation equals causation, SOCIALISM FAILS AGAIN. Hey, thanks for making my point for me.
And your challenge to find anecdotal evidence is sheer folly, Joey. Why don't you examine the differences in tax receipts since 2000, and get back to me. And I bet I could easily find 10 people in the DEMOCRAT CONGRESS who are richer than they were in 2000, so does that mean that tax cuts help Democrats get rich?
ford nut
Local nut case
I hear you Joey...... So does Mccain
Or I thought he did
The chronology is incorrect and dishonest in that video clip.
McCain's statements, when heard in their full context are correct.
That debate was nearly a year ago, it was in January,08.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
WHAT??? You mean...Mister Peanut Gallery tried to pull an out of context zinger? Say it ain't so, Joe!
What?!
Buying stock invests money in business which in turn uses that money to expand that business; creating jobs and growing the economy.
If they sell their stock what else do they do with that money? Unless they are hording that money under their matress, it is going back into the economy one way or another, thus helping create jobs and exapand the economy.
Having to survive as an art student during the Reagan years and then as a starving artist through late Reagan and Bush I, and now trying to make a go of it during Bush II, mostly what I have noticed about trickle down economics is that I get trickled on. 
Having to survive as an art student during the Reagan years and then as a starving artist through late Reagan and Bush I, and now trying to make a go of it during Bush II, mostly what I have noticed about trickle down economics is that I get trickled on.
There's your problem....
Last edited by a moderator:
ford nut
Local nut case
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Then stay out of the co-ed shower.I have noticed about trickle down economics is that I get trickled on.
Couldn't be that you're not a very good artist huh? Or maybe you don't paint things that people want to BUY!
Couldn't be those reasons! Why that would mean you would have to take personal responsibility, wouldn't it?
Heck, why take responsibility when it is so much easier to blame Bush and Republicans.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
In the last 8 years I have tried to start numerous businesses, all of which failed. Not once did I blame Bush.
Maybe I should write a letter and demand my bailout. I figure $5 million should do it.
Maybe I should write a letter and demand my bailout. I figure $5 million should do it.
Heck, why take responsibility when it is so much easier to blame Bush and Republicans.
Not to mention more accurate...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Still haven't answered Calabrio's challenge, yet you continue to repeat your lame, ignorant assertion...Not to mention more accurate...
For someone who's *allegedly* a businessman, you certainly have zero clue about the business cycle.
That's what I said. Thanks for agreeing.
Let me go back and correct what I said.
It is true, that "video" clip you posted is completely dishonest.
NOT JUST because it takes a clip from January and inserts it, without context, into an ad from August. But because when you listen to McCain's COMPLETE answer, he's completely consistent!!! It takes a section of sentence completely out of context.
Here's what McCain said in January 2008.
YouTube - John McCain Defends The Bush Economic Record
Watch that video, Nut, and then tell me where he was wrong.
Tell me if you think there's ANY inconsistency in his message!
And then YOU tell me whether the video YOU posted was honest.
That's true. It's too bad.
If you want to share responsibility for the economic problems fairly based on responsibility, the burden should be carried by the Democrats.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well - Creative Director - not fine artist - and you expect to starve the first few years...
And I am really, really good
Plus, without starving artists and art school girls the entire pole dancer employment pool would be severely limited in both quality and quantity. Heck, what would you be left with - beauty school dropouts and a few questionable poli sci majors.
However perhaps with the downturn on Wall Street those female investment bankers will probably be trying out as well
And Calabrio - I wasn't summarily dismissed - ohhhh....
And I am really, really good
Plus, without starving artists and art school girls the entire pole dancer employment pool would be severely limited in both quality and quantity. Heck, what would you be left with - beauty school dropouts and a few questionable poli sci majors.
However perhaps with the downturn on Wall Street those female investment bankers will probably be trying out as well
And Calabrio - I wasn't summarily dismissed - ohhhh....
Don't talk :q:q:q:q on us poli sci majors. :shifty:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Shag for President!!!1!!ONE!!!